- Test - lists.nanog.org

does KPNQwest really start to shut down?
by Nipper, Arnold 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

>From their website: "If no agreement can be reached, the network will be shut down in a controlled and orderly manner, starting on Friday, 19-07-2002 at 11:00 European time" see http://www.kpnqwest.com for details. Arnold -- Arnold Nipper / nIPper consulting e-mail: arnold(a)nipper.de phone/mob: +49 172 265 0958 fax: +49 6224 9259 333

3 2

Multi-collector Netflow/etc
by Pete Kruckenberg 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

There are lots of interesting tools to collect and analyze network traffic information from protocols like Netflow, sFlow, LFAP, etc. Few of the collectors/analyzers share common data repositories, so one sets up a machine for each with its own export from each router. How are others handling this problem, particularly after hitting the limit of one or two export flows supported by most routers today? Apparently there are a number of packet reflectors (usually running on a Unix machine) that work in theory, how do these work in actual practice, what kind of performance and reliability to they have, and which work well for traffic collection? Has anyone tried using multicast or broadcast addresses or other tricks (shared IP address or MAC address on multiple machines) to share a single accounting stream across multiple collectors? Any other methods that are working for scaling multiple collectors without exceeding router limitations or burdening routers unnecessarily? Pete.

4 5

Re: If you thought Y2K was bad, wait until cyber-security hits
by Mathew Lodge 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

Probe Research has a very lucid take on this very topic at http://www.proberesearch.com/alerts/networksecurity.htm Their point is that, given the current climate, the RBOCs are likely to be setting the agenda for cyber security. To quote Probe's first two conclusions: "First, the RBOCs will be the focus of developing a telecom national security plan; Second, the RBOCs will use this position to force costs onto all players. For example, co-location will be viewed as increasing the risk to telecom, so carriers may be forced to abandon co-location in favor of smaller nodes and these nodes will have to have remote backup nodes." Cheers, Mathew At 08:22 PM 7/18/2002 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: >http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,387377,00.asp > >"All the while maintaining that the government will not set IT security >requirements for the private sector, top federal IT officials today said >they expect such mandates will be imposed on federal agencies and that the >same standards will also be used by industry." > >While standards are great, one-size-fits-all standards aren't. When the >government's cyber-security plan is released in September, will >there be 500 requirements that Internet Service Providers must meet? >Should ISPs be more secure than the post office or the telephone or the >bike messenger? Must Bill's Bait & Sushi Shop ISP Service meet the same >security requirements as the ISP for the White House? > >ISPs come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Consumers use cordless >phones at home, but the NSA prohibits use of cordless phones in secure >areas. Just because the government issues a security standard doesn't make >it suitable for all purposes. Some people like paying $9.95 for Internet >service from an ISP without a backup generator, and wouldn't want to pay >$29.95 for a "certified" ISP with a backup generator. If the $9.95 ISP >fails, heck they could almost afford two more for the same price as a >single "certified" ISP. Sometimes a hammer is just a hammer, and you >don't need a MIL-SPEC. If the Department of Homeland Security creates a >new security standard for ISPs, what do you think will happen to any ISP >which doesn't meet it? > >The security "Gold Standard" for Microsoft 2000 was written by the >Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, the Center for Internet >Security, the National Security Agency, the General Services >Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and >the SANS Institute. > >Do you know who is writing the security "Gold Standard" for Internet >Service Providers?

2 1

Be glad you're not in the U.K.
by blitz 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

And coming soon to the US! >BBC News Online: Sci/Tech >Wednesday, 17 July, 2002, 09:15 GMT 10:15 UK >Switch on for state snooping > >Police forces want to plug in to lots of networks > > >From August net service providers in the UK will be obliged to carry out >surveillance of some customers' web habits on behalf of the police. >Controversial laws passed in 2000 oblige large communications companies >to install technology that allows one in 10,000 of their customers to be >watched. > >The information gathered about what people look at on the web, the >content of e-mail messages and their phone conversations will be passed >to the police or a government monitoring station. > >The demands have been criticised by experts who say the law conflicts >with basic guarantees of privacy and that the government is not doing >enough to help pay for the installation of the surveillance systems. > >Data hoover > >The controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was passed in >October 2000 and gave law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to snoop >on the electronic lives of citizens. > >" It's the internet equivalent of a telephone tap " >Roland Perry, Linx > >The Act demands that organisations it dubs Communication Service >Providers (CSP) - broadly anyone that helps people keep in touch via the >web, fax machine or phone - install technology that can automatically >monitor what many of their customers are doing. > >It also demands that service providers start monitoring a customer >within 24 hours of being told that the police or other investigation >agencies want to snoop on them. > >The information collected must also be passed on electronically to the >agency which asked for the snooping to start. > >A spokesman for the Home Office said 1 August was the day on which the >new surveillance regime would start, even though the technology to do >the watching are yet to be installed. > >He said only law enforcement agencies would have the power to ask for >the surveillance to start. > >Police would have to get a warrant from the Home Office before they >could ask for surveillance to start, he said, and it would only be used >to gather evidence about serious crimes. > >Data delivery > >Roland Perry, public policy director for the London Internet Exchange >which interconnects the networks of net service companies, said the >government was still working out how best to put the surveillance >systems in place. > >"It's a very long-term project," he said. "The whole thing will be done >on a one-to-one basis with the individual companies concerned." > >" Agencies have to make a judgement whether it's worth making a request >if it costs a few hundred pounds to do it " > >Ian Brown, Foundation for Information Policy Research > >The government is also currently working out what types of information >it wants from CSPs and how it will be delivered. > >"In theory, an interception capability would deliver all the data," said >Mr Perry. "It's the internet equivalent of a telephone tap." > >The government is hoping that its work on automatic surveillance will >become a European standard and be widely adopted. > >Costly communication > >Service providers have asked for help to buy the equipment needed to set >up the permanent interception capability. > >"The Home Office has said it would contribute £20m to this but the net >industry has said it will cost a lot more than that," said Ian Brown, >director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research. > >The Internet Service Providers Association has warned about the >potentially huge costs of installing surveillance equipment to meet the >demands of the RIP Act and the recently passed Anti-Terrorism, Crime and >Security Act. > >A spokesman for the organisation said it was still seeking clarification >over the types of data its members were supposed to be catching, how >long it had to be stored for and who would pay for the storage. > >Mr Brown said one of the few safeguards on the snooping system was the >fact that the agencies asking for the surveillance to be carried out >will be charged to use it. > >"This means agencies have to make a >judgement whether it's worth making a request if it costs a few hundred >pounds to do it," said Mr Brown. > > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> >Will You Find True Love? >Will You Meet the One? >Free Love Reading by phone! >http://us.click.yahoo.com/O3jeVD/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/qkHolB/TM >---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

1 0

RE: What is a reasonable range for global BGP table size?
by Kris Foster 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

That number is still too high since some people are advertising their /25 to /32 prefixes to the route-views box.. Kris > -----Original Message----- > From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.Nether.net] > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 12:47 PM > To: Robert Boyle > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: What is a reasonable range for global BGP table size? > > > > I was going off my data analysis of > route-views data. > > wc -l oix.home_as.out > 135949 oix.home_as.out > > this file has prefix:home_asn > > (where home_asn is the last asn in the as_path. prefixes > with inconsistent home_as will appear twice. this may be > cause of some > of your confusion. eliminating those brings it to 120131 prefixes) > > - jared > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:37:09PM -0400, Robert Boyle wrote: > > > > At 11:26 AM 7/18/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > >Hmm. > > > > > >We don't filter, and > > > > > >112942 network entries and 391859 paths using 25288182 > bytes of memory > > > > We don't filter either and... > > > > 117800 network entries and 339843 paths using 23660948 > bytes of memory > > > > > > "about 135k prefixes last i checked." is not what we see > here from any of > > our upstreams. > > > > > > -Robert > > > > > > > > > > Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection > > http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 > > "Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and > lost by one." - > > Francis Jeffrey > > -- > Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared(a)puck.nether.net > clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements > are only mine. >

4 3

RE: QoS/CoS in the real world?
by Stephen J. Wilcox 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, John Evans wrote: > > I realise this is a US-centric list, however, a significant number of > providers in Europe have deployed Diffserv as a means of supporting (and > selling) differential SLAs. Of these, some have deployed Diffsev at the > edge and some both the edge and core. See Clarence Filsfils presentation at > NANOG 25 for a description of typical core deployments. > > > 2. Hype aside, to what extent do customers actually want this > > Surely end customers want a service with SLAs that will support their > applications, and at low cost? It then becomes a provider cost > consideration as to whether these SLA assurances can most competitively > satisfied with mechanisms such as Diffserv or without. I have to say that the majority of users barely understand how their outlook client works let alone the difference between applications. I'm starting to think theres no demand for these services other than that which the hype says is there. THis is in line with what people said about using qos behind the scenes but customers dont know.. kind of what I thought to begin with STeve > > I conclude either the people doing this are successful and keep > > their secret > > safe or the world is yet to sell largescale QoS across IP. > > or perhaps they are just not on this list. > > cheers > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > > Stephen J. Wilcox > > Sent: 14 July 2002 00:47 > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: QoS/CoS in the real world? > > > > > > > > Well, end of the week and the responses dried up pretty quickly, > > I think thats a > > response in itself to my question! > > > > Okay, heres a summary which was requested by a few people: > > > > Other people too are interested in my questions, they dont > > implement QoS in any > > saleable manner and wonder how it can be done and whats actually > > required. > > > > A number of people think QoS was interesting for a while but that > > its never > > either found its true use or is dead. > > > > There are unresolved questions from a customer point of view as > > to what they are > > actually going to get, what difference it will make and how they > > can measure > > their performance and the improvements from QoS. > > > > There is a real demand for guaranteed bandwidth, however this > > tends to be in the > > form of absolute guarantees rather than improvements above "normal" hence > > ATM remaining a popular solution. > > > > There is a requirement to differentiate voice traffic, however this is > > necessarily done by the network anyway in order to offer the > > service, this being > > the case the customer doesnt pay extra or gets to know much about > > how all the > > fancy bits are done. > > > > > > On the face of it this is all negative. Nobody has responded > > saying there are > > genuine requirements for services to be offered to customers. Nor > > has anybody > > responded with any descriptions of implementations. > > > > I conclude either the people doing this are successful and keep > > their secret > > safe or the world is yet to sell largescale QoS across IP. > > > > Steve > > > > > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > I've been looking through the various qos/cos options > > available, my particular > > > area was in how IP (MPLS perhaps) compares and can be a > > substitute for ATM. > > > > > > Well, theres lots of talk and hype out there, from simple IP > > queuing eg cisco > > > priority queuing, rsvp, diffserv, mpls traffic engineering etc > > > > > > But two things are bugging me.. > > > > > > 1. To what extent have providers implemented QoS for their customers > > > > > > 2. Hype aside, to what extent do customers actually want this > > (and by this I > > > dont just mean that they want the latest QoS because its the > > 'latest thing', > > > there has to be a genuine reason for them to want it). And this > > takes me back to > > > my ATM reference where there is a clear major market still out > > there of ATM > > > users and what would it take to migrate them to an IP solution? > > > > > > Also, how are people implementing bandwidth on demand (dynamic > > allocation > > > controlled by the customer) solutions to customers > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Fiber cut NE USA
by Martin Hepworth 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Hi Looks theres a fiber cut in NE USA. It's definitly affecting what's left of PSI-net's network trans USA. Anyone got any details? -- Martin Hepworth Senior Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Ltd +44 (0)1865 842300 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

4 3

looking glass
by Scott Granados 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

What are people using for looking glass software. Is it just some simple perl code which grabs data from the router or is it more complex than that? Thanks Scott

5 4

What is a reasonable range for global BGP table size?
by Rob Healey 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

How big is the global BGP table running these days? 100K? 110K? Bigger? -Rob

9 9

fractional gigabit ethernet links?
by Alex Rubenstein 18 Jul '02

18 Jul '02

Hello, I'm trying to troubleshoot a problem with a fractional (311 mbit/second) gigabit-ethernet line provided to me by a metro access provider. Specifically, it is riding a gig-e port of a 15454. The behavior we are seeing is an occasional loss of packets, adding up to a few percent. When doing a cisco-type ping across the link, we were seeing a consistent 3 to 4 percent loss. For fun, the provider brought it up to 622 mbit/second, and loss dropped considerably, but still hangs at about 1 to 2 percent. There is no question in my mind the issue is with the line, as we've done a wide variety of tests to rule out the local equipment (MSFC2s, FYI). Any clues would be exceptional. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --

12 16